You will be lucky if you go past 1500.
How far can experience alone take you?
Sort:
I was 1350 after my first rated tournament, with a few months of club play and minimal post-mortems because no one wanted to take the time. Turned out that initial performance rating was an underestimate. The magical numbers I see in this thread? The ones you couldn't possibly exceed? Complete rubbish. I've seen a great deal of stupidity and arrogance in chess.com threads, but some of the postings here take it to a new depth.
(That almost felt good.)
Wish you good luck buddy.
Any way it is better to spend time playing chess than in bars although I meet MOSTLY same kind of people in bars and here in chess.com - they think they're better than they actually are - most just live in another world thinking that they are much better than they will ever be - not much connection with present.
T Steinar:
13 is too old age to imho start any serious chess career. That is already puberty time and there is just no time for chess. Other things get priority at that age so most guys starting at that age will never get dedication that is necessary for chess. Top chess players are spartans and they got that way of life at very early age.
7-10 is desirable age.
pathfinder416 wrote:
I was 1350 after my first rated tournament, with a few months of club play and minimal post-mortems because no one wanted to take the time. Turned out that initial performance rating was an underestimate. The magical numbers I see in this thread? The ones you couldn't possibly exceed? Complete rubbish. I've seen a great deal of stupidity and arrogance in chess.com threads, but some of the postings here take it to a new depth.
(That almost felt good.)
Oops, you didn't read the question carefully. It asked about the average player, not you.
Oops, we weren't saying the OP couldn't exceed these numbers, we were talking about the average player who does no type of learning outside of the act of playing games.
Yep, a sad state of affairs that for the most part stems from a lack of reading comprehension.
(That almost felt... too easy).
Just a thought, on a sort of paralellel...
I play golf; fairly decent for an old guy. I go to the driving range every day (weather, health, etc. permitting).
There are guys in the golf club who are crazy with golf...consumed with it...they love it more than their wives. The best are very, very good for amateurs. Yet, the golf pro...the head pro...is better than all of them.
He has dedicated his entire working life to golf. Started as a kid. Here's my point...he continues to take lessons from his trainer. How can this be? Go ask Tiger...he has trainers, too.
Chess? Golf? Just putz around, never study...well, in the end...same results.
I would just like to clarify about this "average young man" that the OP mentioned.
Well, the average IQ is 100, prox. (well, it is actually better to state it as a perecentile...such as you need to be in the 2 percentile to be accepted by Mensa)...but I think my point should be rather obvious.
Anyway...I think that a 100 IQ isn't going to get this average person all that far in chess. Nope. I don't want to come right out and say that "average" is somewhat cerebrally challenged except for checkers. But, I guess just did.
Seeing as IQ is a quotient, an IQ of 100 (or any number) is nothing else but a percentile.
Intelligent people may be good or bad at chess. There are many areas someone can be brilliant in. You don't really see a medical doctor publishing papers on mathematics if you see what I mean. Chess is a very specific and narrow skill. It clicks for some people, and doesn't for others.
No...no...you are missing my point.
First off, I said that IQ is better expressed as a percentile. Sure you read my post???
Secondly, although chess requires certain skills...which may even be lacking in certain "intelligent" people...being slow witted is not going to be an advantage in chess.
The "average" person, from my life experiences, is not an analytical thinker. See my point, now?
To ChessStrategist:
IQ has absolutely nothing to do with success.
I'm talking about not too much below 100.
Total dedication, start at young age, good mentors are decisive factors absolutely.
I know lots of soccer and basketball players who were so bad they could not make our class team in high school and they were so bad they could not play neither for A nor B team of our class. One even went besides that to play basketball for national team and later moved to Italy to play there. Lots of those untalented soccer players managed to make our local city soccer team.
Besides real fanatic dedication good coaches and in chess start at very early age are the keys.
I read somewhere about people with highest IQ. Never heard of some of them. Physicist Steven Hawkins is not there but he managed to become most recognized name in physics besides his disability and not sky high IQ level.
I guess.
To be honest I'm pretty tired and about to log off :) I apologize if I missed your point and about the IQ thing. My main trip-up is probably that "Intelligent" and "average" are so vague that they become subjective terms in a discussion.
Fair enough.
>>IQ has absolutely nothing to do with success<<
Success in what? Plenty of movie and song stars can attest to what you said.
Now, this thing we call chess... One needs a certain ability to think analytically to play chess. I did not say that all analytically thinking people can play chess welll. Pay attention, please.
100 IQ? Wonderful. Just don't plan on reaching Expert or above...except, of course, with a bogus cyber chess "rating". Especially with the implementation of a chess database.
One thing chess requires: THINKING. Most people go by faith, by the consensus of their peers...they really don't have the tools to analyze objectively on any depth. Monkeys can't either.
This is not an insult to the "average" person. This is an objective statement about chess...an analyzing and thinking game...calculating as well as cunning...got to be able to solve problems with mental acuity.
Late hour...going to bed, too. Why do I feel like I am preaching to the choir? You guys know these things. You know that you have "average" friends and family where you would steer them toward something within their skill sets and potentials.
Don't have the tools (brains) or are unwilling to use them (work and study), than you may make it to Grade 1 Panzer...maybe even up to 1500 with USCF or FIDE...or bloated 1800 or 2000 rated on cyber chess. That's a high end guesstimate.
One other possibility wich has never happend but may is all your life you may get Unlucky opponents and some who for some reason can't make it to a round in a tournament and some who are accused and caught for cheating if they are beating
*sits back and snacks on Pop Corn*
To Chess Strategist:
I absolutely agree 100 % with everything you wrote above.
We sort of drifted from the topic question here. As you can see from my posts above I also wrote - just playing chess you can get up to 1500 - if you use books and videos up to 1800 - unless you start at age 7-10, total dedications, mentors and spartan life that is absolutely the limit.
But do you think that physics requires thinking too - especially astronomy like Steven Hawkins did with new and it seems correct theories of black holes etc. Not highest IQ among physicists and disabled yet he's no. 1.
So yes you have to have above avarage IQ in order to be GM but my point was that all GMs have it - it is not really decisive factor any more with them. Fanatic dedication and good mentors and assistants, start at early age are.
I mean anything that involves thinking be it chess or math or physics or you name it definitelly requires above average IQ but in all those fields usually person with highest IQ among them does not achieve real top spot.
Once again I agree everything you wrote above.
waffllemaster wrote:
pathfinder416 wrote:
I was 1350 after my first rated tournament, with a few months of club play and minimal post-mortems because no one wanted to take the time. Turned out that initial performance rating was an underestimate. The magical numbers I see in this thread? The ones you couldn't possibly exceed? Complete rubbish. I've seen a great deal of stupidity and arrogance in chess.com threads, but some of the postings here take it to a new depth.
(That almost felt good.)
Oops, you didn't read the question carefully. It asked about the average player, not you.
Oops, we weren't saying the OP couldn't exceed these numbers, we were talking about the average player who does no type of learning outside of the act of playing games.
Yep, a sad state of affairs that for the most part stems from a lack of reading comprehension.
(That almost felt... too easy).
I'll continue with my lack of comprehension, it's where I'm most comfortable :).
(1) I have trouble defining an "average" player.
(2) I have trouble with the notion that any player (even an "average" player) stops learning about the game after some unknown number of games played, and that any of us can say when that stop-learning state occurs.
(3) Purely anecdotal: I stopped playing tournament chess in 1981, then started again in 1989. In the absence of rated play or any significant study for 8 years, I had risen about 300 points. Who knows how high I'd be if I'd waited 20 years!
Some of you are wanting a truism that I don't think exists.
See...one needs critical thinking skills to communicate, too. Now, the OP didn't mention an "average player". No...no...
>>Hypothetically, an average young man (or woman for pc)<<
My first comment is that an "average young man/woman" is not likely to become an "average player". Think about that first. Leave out the "I did this and I did that..." We are not talking about a particular individual...who, in all probability, is not an average man/woman with a 100 IQ.
Now..you want to tell me that you have an IQ of 100 (as does the typical database engine user...hey...a joke...DB guys...put your hatchets down...just poking a litte fun at you)...
What was I saying? OK...you admit to having a 100 IQ, you took up chess at an early age, you never studied or had any coaching...you just played 1,000,000 games by the seat of your pants and now you are Expert or above FIDE or USCF?
This fairy tale I want to hear.
Oh...and even though, theoretically, this might happen on a moonless night when the werewolves are howling...we need repeatability for our experiment. Since we are talking about the "average man/woman", we would need a few dozen to replicate and validate our experiment.
Yes you can get 1000+ under certain conditions:
- not average guy
- super talent
- start early at age 7-10
- total dedication to chess only - no work, no college - just study chess
- top mentors
- no night life
- single life just like bobby fisher was or dedicated spouse no kids
- not loosing any time on web pages like chess.com
Question here was about average guy meaning college or work obligations, wife, kids and normal everyday life - you won't get above 1800 even if you consult books and videos.
Bobby Fisher was just poster boy for top chess player. Start early, good mentors, total dedication, spartan life, good mentors and assistants, single life.